Constables must say why they refused data park bornement
Tuesday 19th July 2011, 2:29PM BST.
Beechgrove House, which has been demolished to make way for the access road to Guernsey Data Park. (Picture by Adrian Miller, 1118793)
ST SAMPSON’S constables have until the close of business today to say why they are refusing a developer a bornement for a new road junction to a business park approved by the States.
Under a 1930s law, Guernsey Data Park Ltd has been denied the permit that enables work to be carried out within nine metres of the road.
For the developer, Advocate Peter Ferbrache told the Interlocutory Court that the matter needed to be expedited.
For the constables, Advocate Paul Richardson said that his client was now further assessing the application.
Deputy Bailiff Richard Collas ordered that the constables must reveal the information they had before them when they made their decision to the applicant by close of business today.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
I hope the reason is that the Constables see no need for a set of traffic lights at this private gateway
There are enough traffic delays without the need to give way to a computer geek in his Smart car
Report abuse
Oh dear Ray,
Are you afraid of change and improvement to the island?
Lets hope they don’t decide to close the road for 12 weeks whilst they carry out the work,
Oops to late
Report abuse
I don’t understand why the Constables are being so coy. As a St Sampson’s resident I am not happy that they are playing fast and loose with ratepayer’s money in a David v Goliath legal tussle.
Report abuse
Who’s for progress
Oh dear.You must have a very fertile mind to read into my post that I am against progress
What I am against is a private developer overriding the free flow of traffic on a major road.If such a precedent is set I wonder who would be clamouring next for their own set of ‘private’ traffic lights?
Perhaps the Press / Alliance / MoonPig etc at their difficult Braye Road junction?
Possibly M & S at their Route Carre exit?
How about Le Friquet Garden Centre / Oatlands /
Beau Sejour /Best’s Brickfield / Port Soif Tearooms / The Crab Cabin?
Get this welcome project under way and build a wide entrance / exit with good sightlines by all means but traffic lights at public expense and inconvenience?
Report abuse
Be interesting to see if Data Parks sue St Sampsons for their legal fees if this is deemed an unwarranted delaying tactic. I’l lalso assume that St Sampsons rate payers are paying Adv Richardson’s fees.
I can see this going expensively south very quickly.
Isn’t it time this outdated and, in my view, inconsequential law was just got rid of?
Report abuse
Give the Constables a break, this ‘outdated’ law, as some would call it, seems to be one of the few real powers they have to control what happens with property in the parish, and it only concerns development within 15ft of a public road.
I do think they need to explain themselves though, however I do wholly agree with Ray, traffic lights…not necessary.
I’ve got an awkward driveway, can I have a set with my own remote control please?
Neil, just because a law was created in the 1930′s doesn’t mean it is outdated nor inconsequential.
Report abuse
This has been through quite an extensive Planning Process; and all relevant permissions granted. I’m relatively sure that traffic issues would have been taken into consideration before licences were issued -happy to be corrected though.
See St Sampson’s piece on Bornement.
http://www.gov.gg/ccm/general/parishes/st-sampson/parish-officials.en;jsessionid=FA374EBBD7CA9F7F61D1EBAAE5F86030
So we have this system where property owners spend thousands of pounds on the Planning Process; examined by client professionals, government professionals and the public given every chance to object. Only, seemingly, in the final minute to be stymied by a law that, although updated in 1930, probably derives from a time when Church owned half the Island and the Crown t’other.
I genuinely believe all this requires a final modernising review. Get shot of Bornemnent, get shot of Fiefs and daft ancient rights such as seccage (sp?) and my grandfathers right to graze cobbled-goats on a certain well known Fief.
Quirky, culturally amusing and even fun but just ridiculous in 21st Century Guernsey.
Report abuse
Neil
You can’t get rid of all that old stuff .. it’s good for tourism!
Where would the Cobo car park saga be without Fiefs? I make it about two years now since the Crown office started working feverishly on the Cobo problem so we might get a result any time now
Report abuse